Only valid for active forum users. Active means at least 30 postings within the last 30 days (no spam postings). This will automatically being checked at www.starbike.com shopping basket so make sure that you are logged in at the WW board!If there does not appear a WW discount position when you check out you do not have enough postings!

Hi guys, I have a choice to make between riding Reynolds Assaults 2009 or Zipp 101 2011 wheels. Which would you go with, assuming you will be climbing and riding flats equally? There are the obvious initial differences, like rim depth and weight, but I'm interested in opinions of those who have ridden both. TIA!

I'd avoid the 2009 Assaults - I owned a pair for a few months back then - they are really just low to mid-level Far East wheels with branding - flexy and one of the worse brake tracks ever. They would rub front and back even when climbing at moderate effort. They also gave me a death wobble shimmy descending at speed (despite being true), that I've had with no other wheels on the same bike, including other mid to high profile carbon wheels. They're also not terribly light or aero and come from the era when melting brake tracks was common. I saw this happen to someone else once (a skilled friend descending Palomar east grade - prolonged descent, not too technical or much braking). They are the epitome of the "it looks good but serves no purpose" poseur carbon clincher. If you insist on an all carbon value clincher, look at Boyd. I think the whole CC genre varies from crap (most) to beta technology (Zipp, Enve) at present. If you need aero and light weight for racing, get tubulars in one of the new wider iterations (Zipp Firecrest/Enve Smart). Otherwise, carbon clinchers look good at a distance, but don't serve any functional purpose. They may look racy on the B group ride, but scream 'Fred' to the knowledgeable (Yes, I was guilty. We all learn and evolve.). If you insist on carbon clinchers, the Mavic line (alloy brake track or the new embedded aluminum in carbon) seem well thought out from a quality and safety perspective and make some sense if you live/ride in a relatively flat area.

No personal experience riding the 101's. They seem like a well thought out design, but seem a little pricey for an alloy wheelset. However, you're on the right path with a wide, semi-aero alloy wheelset. 23 mm rims with latex tubes and good tires come damn close to tubulars for ride quality and make sense from a convenience standpoint. State of the art these days, excepting race day tubulars. If so inclined, you could replicate the 101's with any one of a number of handbuilt sets with equal quality components at a lower price point. There are now a few wide, semi-aero rims out there. Check with one of the great wheelbuilders. Ergott, Zen Cyclery and I believe Justin Spinelli all inhabit this website periodically.

If you're looking at two used sets and this is an 'either/or question', go with the 101's no doubt.

If its an alloy clincher your after, consider Rolf Prima. The Vigor is very light and at 34mm deep more aero than both.It it's weight, have a look at their Élan. I use both the VigorSL (road) and VigorFX (track) and am very satisfied.

Just to show the other side of the coin, I've happily been on Reynolds Assaults and Attacks for a couple of years now with no issues. Descending (fast with zero "death" wobble) and ascending (slow to very slow usually) mountains in UT and CO, they've stayed true and the brake tracks haven't self-destructed despite my nearly exclusive use of latex tubes.

Then again, I'm apparently just a Fred poseur that's not as enlightened nor as knowledgeable as an earlier poster.

Shinobi wrote:Hi guys, I have a choice to make between riding Reynolds Assaults 2009 or Zipp 101 2011 wheels. Which would you go with, assuming you will be climbing and riding flats equally? There are the obvious initial differences, like rim depth and weight, but I'm interested in opinions of those who have ridden both. TIA!

Don't get the 2009 Assaults, they are rubbish as the other posters have said. The 2011/2012 Assaults are much better.

justkeepedaling wrote:No offense but I have pretty much 0 trust for rolf's own material. They don't even show a yaw plot or multiple runs, nor do they show any development insight.

I'd put money on the 101s being more aero in an independent test

Interesting stance. I'd personally vouch for the Rolf's. Excellent wheelset and much better priced. Additionally, being a smaller company they will custom build to meet personal needs at no extra cost.

I take all company aero claims with a grain of salt. They only ever release favuorable information. Nothing beats rim depth in the end - deeper=less spokes=aero, aerofoil shape assist handling and wind affects.

The reason I don't buy Rolf's aero data is because it's way off what every other test has ever shown. When HED says they're slightly faster than Zipp and Zipp says they're slightly faster than HED, and Trek wheels are very close to both, etc..., I can accept that differences in setup or test protocol will skew the results one way or the other. When they all say Rolf wheels (and Reynolds) are noticeably slower, and semi-independent tests confirm it, I have to rule out Rolf's data almost entirely....and I've seen a lot of recurring broken spoke issues with Reynolds' cheaper wheels, even after only a couple months. I'm not saying the 101 have a stellar record, but they're still the ones I'd go with.